Constitutional Crisis in the Making?

World View Weekend | 6 Aug 03 | Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.

[lugsoul]

Well, you are just wrong. This is about Moore and his own stated goals. And its not in his courtroom. It dominates the rotunda of the judicial building and Moore refused to allow other "lawgiver" and religious displays.

I really wish some of the knee-jerk people on here would do a little research on Judge Carnes, who wrote the 11th Circuit opinion. If every Federal judge shared his conservatism, no one here would be complaining about Federal judges.

This is create-an-issue, courtesy of Judge Moore and his political ambition. Your blind and non-factual support of him only furthers his personal cause.

[xzins]

As Moore said, he is a judge in Alabama and he is not the US Congress. That certainly is clear. Nor is he the legislature of Alabama. It is also clear that no law has been passed. He chose to set up a monument in his courthouse.

He argues that is the true God is not over the laws of the land, then that means that human beings are supreme. If they're supreme, then hold onto your hat because they'll someday pass a law that says they can legally steal your hat.

And to whom will you then appeal for justice and rights?

[lugsoul]

Oh - as far as passing a law is concerned, it is well-settled that a state can't act in a way that would be illegal if it passed a law to the same effect. This is simple, common sense. A state can't act in an unconstitutional way and avoid the legal issue by simply not passing a law justifying its actions. An example - is it constitutional for state officials to arrest and jail persons for practicing a certain religion, if there is no law against it?

[lugsoul]

This argument is addressed a thousand times in these threads and in the law, including in this case. Do you really believe that only legislatures can violate the Bill of Rights? Do you really believe that those countries that trample the rights we hold dear do so only by enacting laws?

[Mr. Bird]

There is a law against that. That's what habeas corpus addresses.

[Tax-chick]

Your arguments are interesting, and I will certainly think about them. However, this:

Your blind and non-factual support of him only furthers his personal cause.

is just silly. My opinion, stupid or not, on this issue has no effect on anything to do with Judge Moore. No one will even know my opinion, except my husband (if he's listening :-) and a few FReepers. I'm a resident of North Carolina, and have nothing to do with Alabama. I'm not going to send him money; that's for charity or local political campaigns. So I'm furthering his "personal cause" ... how?

You can think I'm a ditz if you want - certainly plenty of other have - but to imagine I'm influential is the Far Side.

[diamond6]

"We must help Chief Justice Roy Moore stand fast against the ACLU theophobes and the anti-constitutional heathens who abet it and sit on the 11th Circuit Court."

Any suggestions?

[lugsoul]

Yep - and that has been suspended before.

[lugsoul]

And my question was not whether it was illegal. It was whether it is unconstitutional.

[William Terrell]

Do you really believe that only legislatures can violate the Bill of Rights?

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The legislatures have their own constitutions to violate.

[lugsoul]

Does that mean you do believe that the Bill of Rights does not constrain the states in any way?

[Sloth]

I support Moore, but some of this is just silly.

But he will not obey this order. To do so would be (a) to violate his oath of office to the Alabama Constitution which specifically declares the state laws to be under God;

False, unless the Constitution *requires* the placement of a monument declaring that truth.

(b) to grant jurisdiction to a federal court which is acting beyond the scope of its lawful jurisdiction; (c) to ratify an unlawful and usurpatious application of the First Amendment;

I'll go along with those.

and most importantly (d) to concede that the God of Scripture is not supreme over the laws of the United States.

False. Go nowhere requires public display of such monuments. The presence or absence of a man-made monument does not change God or His relationship to man, nor does it imply anything about that relationship.

[bert]

.....As a matter of law.....

The Judge seems to be arguing that congress passed no law. If that is true, how did he lose in court? The ACLU argued something in court. What law did the ACLU argue and what did the judges rule on that specific point of law.

[Centurion2000]

There is not a learned judge in the nation, from Scalia on down, who believes that the states can violate the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment at will.

Funny but they seem entirely comfortable with letting states violate the 2nd amendment at will ...

[William Terrell]

Does that mean you do believe that the Bill of Rights does not constrain the states in any way?

What does the Preamble say? Does it mention the states, or just the national government?

[HapaxLegamenon]

the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As Moore has pointed out: He is not Congress, and no law has been passed.

But don't you know, the 14th Admendment "incorporates" the Bill of rights* to all other legeal entities...

* With the exception of course to the 2nd admendment which is a part of the bill of rights, but gives no rights, and the 9th admendment which gives the peolple the right, unless the courts of course say no, and the 10th admendments which gives states the right to make their own laws, subject of course to the Veto power of Ruth Gader Ginsburgh et al.

[RipSawyer]

"then hold onto your hat because they'll someday pass a law that says they can legally steal your hat."

Hasn't that already been done? What else is the progressive income tax?

[HapaxLegamenon]

Here here! See my post below concerning incorporation.

[drjimmy]

He argues that is the true God is not over the laws of the land, then that means that human beings are supreme. If they're supreme, then hold onto your hat because they'll someday pass a law that says they can legally steal your hat. And to whom will you then appeal for justice and rights?
Of course human beings are supreme when it comes to governing themselves. Exactly who is it you appeal to for justice and rights right now? Is it your God or your government?